Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao European Journal of ...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
European Journal of Pain
Article . 2020 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

Prevalence and incidence of phantom limb pain, phantom limb sensations and telescoping in amputees: A systematic rapid review

Authors: Stankevicius, Anna; Wallwork, Sarah B.; Summers, Simon J. (R19360); Hordacre, Brenton G.; Stanton, Tasha R.;

Prevalence and incidence of phantom limb pain, phantom limb sensations and telescoping in amputees: A systematic rapid review

Abstract

AbstractBackground and objectiveThis systematic, rapid review aimed to critically appraise and synthesize the recent literature (2014–2019) evaluating the incidence and prevalence of post‐amputation phantom limb pain (PLP) and sensation (PLS).Databases and data treatmentFive databases (Medline, Embase, Emcare, PsychInfo, Web of Science) and Google Scholar were searched, with two independent reviewers completing eligibility screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.ResultsThe search identified 1,350 studies with 12 cross‐sectional and 3 prospective studies included. Studies evaluated traumatic (n = 5), atraumatic (n = 4), and combined traumatic/atraumatic (n = 6) amputee populations, ranging from 1 month to 33 years post‐amputation. Study heterogeneity prevented data pooling. The majority of studies had a high risk of bias, primarily due to limited generalizability. Three studies evaluated PLP incidence, ranging from 2.2% (atraumatic; 1 month) to 41% (combined; 3 months) and 82% (combined; 12 months). Only one study evaluated PLS/telescoping incidence. Across contrasting populations, PLP point prevalence was between 6.7%–88.1%, 1 to 3‐month period prevalence was between 49%‐93.5%, and lifetime prevalence was high at 76%–87%. Point prevalence of PLS was 32.4%‐90%, period prevalence was 65% (1 month) and 56.9% (3 months), and lifetime prevalence was 87%. Telescoping was less prevalent, highest among traumatic amputees (24.6%) within a 1‐month prevalence period. Variations in population type (e.g. amputation characteristics) and incidence and prevalence measures likely influence the large variability seen here.ConclusionsThis review found that lifetime prevalence was the highest, with most individuals experiencing some type of phantom phenomena at some point post‐amputation.SignificanceThis systematic rapid review provides a reference for clinicians to make informed prognosis estimates of phantom phenomena for patients undergoing amputation. Results show that most amputees will experience phantom limb pain (PLP) and phantom limb sensations (PLS): high PLP incidence 1‐year post‐amputation (82%); high lifetime prevalence for PLP (76%–87%) and PLS (87%). Approximately 25% of amputees will experience telescoping. Consideration of individual patient characteristics (cause, amputation site, pre‐amputation pain) is pertinent given their likely contribution to incidence/prevalence of phantom phenomena.

Country
Australia
Keywords

senses and sensation, Incidence, 380, Sensation, 610, amputees, phantom limb, Amputation, Surgical, phantom pain, Cross-Sectional Studies, Amputees, Phantom Limb, amputation, Surgical, XXXXXX - Unknown, Prevalence, Humans, Prospective Studies, Amputation, limb pain

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    83
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
83
Top 1%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!